Not necessarily. GBA is an informal fallacy and thus its falliciousness depends on the specific propositions involved. Undistributed middle, on the other hand, is a formal fallacy and is always wrong.

...Ronald Reagan funded el salvadorean death squads and sold weapons to iranian terrorists, but you voted for him. In fact, Mitt Romney and several other Presidential candidates spoke loving ly of this supporter of mass murdereders, who once was our president.

With a simple sentence, we see how easy it is to strip the complexity of motivations and human stories down to something that is both accurate and apparently morally damning - but is, in fact, ultimately just fu*king stupid.

Just like 'ol Uncle Ron is just an optimistic, tax-cutting champion of small business to you republicans, Che Guevara is just a vaguely 'power to the people' guy from Latin America to most young liberals. That's all there is. Grow up. Stop hacking.

Wow, that's some spectacularly bad reasoning there, Bithead.

Somehow, I thought you'd be the one to object.

In the first place there are any number of reasons they might have a picture of che up.

Yeah, right. Sure.

Maybe they throw darts at it when their bored.

Only, you didn't notice any darts, right?

Then you make another (that they revere him for his politics)

These people are by definition, politcal activists. And why else would political activists like him? Because he smokes a particular brand of Cigar?

hen another (that they only like politicians with policies like Che's).

Does it make a great deal of sense that they would revere two political; figures from opposite ends of the spectrum?

Sorry. Your dance still isn't convincing anyone to avoid the obvious.

These people who hold Che and his way of thinking and acting dear enough to honor him with a place on their wall... would these be working to get Obama elected, as they are, if they for a minute thought that Obama would be working in the opposite political direction from Che? Clearly, they think otherwise.

Wow, that's some spectacularly bad reasoning there, Bithead.

In the first place there are any number of reasons they might have a picture of che up. Maybe they throw darts at it when their bored. So first you make an unfounded assumption (that they revere Che). Then you make another (that they revere him for his politics). Then another (that they only like politicians with policies like Che's).

You're averaging one and a half mistakes per sentence.

Think, now;

These people who hold Che and his way of thinking and acting dear enough to honor him with a place on their wall... would these be working to get Obama elected, as they are, if they for a minute thought that Obama would be working in the opposite political direction from Che? Clearly, they think otherwise.

Notice, please, What I'm speaking to is the perception of the people who put that flag up, and are ostensibly supporting Obama. Now, Obama actually thinking the same way, I grant is an open question. The perception of Obama's ideals by the people who put up that Che flag, may or may not be correct.

But what does it say for an org that attracts such people? It seems logical to assume that they think their way of thinking will benefit by the person they are working for getting elected.

Further, what does it say that these people are still working for the campaign? For one thing, it's a suggestion that the perception of his campaign workers in the matter isn't all that far off, after all.

This is an undistributed middle fallacy, not a guilt by association fallacy.

It's that, too. You could probably argue that the GBA fallacy is really just a name for the merger of several different fallacies.

In the Obama case, the person in question was not an employee of the campaign. She was not officially associated with the campaign in any capacity, paid or otherwise. She was a self-selected volunteer who worked with some other self-selected volunteers. They were an unofficial lead time who helped, unasked, secure some office space for the campaign.

So no, you can't really make any judgments of Obama based on her, because there is no hiring chain involved.